Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of
course we
are hungry
for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We
encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded,
you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.

My first reaction was to drop this comment in the Chinadaily article comments thread you point to, until i realized its a fake comments section: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?contentid=11891425
so i hope you can accept it here.

1. This might be the definite proof that the system you propose is close to communism (no implicit insult here).

2.On the other hand they miss totally the point about IPR:

--"But the purpose of an IPR system is not only to protect intellectual property, but also to encourage innovation, maintain social justice and thus promote comprehensive economic and social progress"

The purpose of IPR system is that people make public their research. The alternative is trade secret.

--"The fundamental driving force of innovation is competition, while IPR protection in substance is a kind of monopoly"

The fundamental driven force of innovation is creativity; IPR is not a kind of monopoly, it is a clear monopoly granted by the state in exchange of inventions and creations publication.

--"In their economics paper, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that in many current and historical markets, innovation has thrived in the absence of copyrights, patents and other forms of monopoly power"

They try to argue with the unscientific method of picking just the cases that fit their theory, and therefore make an unconvincingly case.

3. As for software patents I only can suggest them to read the following piece from someone who knows what he is talking about:

My first reaction was to drop this comment in the Chinadaily article comments thread you point to, until i realized its a fake comments section: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?contentid=11891425 so i hope you can accept it here.

Classic erroneous presupposition. This website is not a toilet.

1. This might be the definite proof that the system you propose is close to communism (no implicit insult here).

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

2.On the other hand they miss totally the point about IPR

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

The purpose of IPR system is that people make public their research.

It's also to promote creation in the first place. It fails at both.

The alternative is trade secret.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Disclosure without patent is a third option, and a common one among tech companies, particularly the more agile software firms.

The fundamental driven force of innovation is creativity

Classic pontification.

IPR is not a kind of monopoly

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

it is a clear monopoly granted by the state in exchange of inventions and creations publication.

And it doesn't work well at all. Nor is it needed.

"In their economics paper, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue that in many current and historical markets, innovation has thrived in the absence of copyrights, patents and other forms of monopoly power"

They try to argue with the unscientific method of picking just the cases that fit their theory

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

and therefore make an unconvincingly case.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

As for software patents I only can suggest them to read the following piece from someone who knows what he is talking about:

http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. No software patents should be granted, even for nonobvious software "inventions". Software is already covered by another IPR: copyright. Granting software patents as well is therefore double-dipping.

And that's if you *accept* the general premise behind IPR. That premise is actually fatally flawed and all IPR should be abolished posthaste.